Mid-October will probably be more accurate, but if these are even within a few points, he won't riding a white horse to the inauguration._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

democrats now with a commanding lead in the senate (53 to 46, 1 tie), but it seems Obama is losing a little ground (319 to 206, critically 13 ties, which have all come from Obama)._________________He who calls for full employment calls for war!

I think most of the ties are what has been fluctuating all along. I still think it is too early to say one way or another -- ignoring the obvious part that it is too early until election day :D._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

I'm pretty sure the media and these election "watchers" in america actually cook the numbers to make the contest seem very even. They have to keep milking the issue. It wouldn't be interesting if one guy had a lead on the other all the time and the former winning a foregone conclusion._________________At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome.

For BBC, it is not so much cooking but reporting banal fact. All the toss-up states are indeed in dead-heat and doesn't serve the purpose of news reporting to show them as leaning on one or the other.

American and electoral-vote.com are opinion pieces, which are a bit more relevant for people who want to know the future and may not be interested in the actual fact._________________"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee

BBC doesn't seem any more accurate. Everyone knows the battleground states. It seems the BBC is simply not willing to make predictions.

Many of the battleground states historically vote for the Democrat. There are only a few elections where the country overwhelmingly chose one candidate, despite partisan trends. So the only question really becomes, is this one of those times. If not, then there are fewer genuine battleground states._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

I'm not sure what the length of the polls are that are being taken, but even with Willard 'winning' the debate, it seems as if Obama has seen a jump in electoral college votes compared to a drop in support for Romney._________________He who calls for full employment calls for war!

I see what this page is doing. It is giving the battleground states to Obama, while the BBC is showing the battleground states as up for grabs._________________"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee

Not all of them, but yes. Generally speaking, I don't disagree with "giving" them to Obama. The BBC site shows by what percentage the state went R or D on the last 2 elections. Unfortunately, that isn't entirely useful. Some of Obama's percentage from last time was an over reaction (IMO) to Bush. BUT, many of those states are close, so it is reasonable to not "give" them to either candidate.

New Mexico is polling 10 points in Obama's favor, and it tends to vote Democrat. So I don't really consider that one in play. It could be but seems unlikely. Two more examples are Wisconsin & Michigan. Obama won them pretty strongly (14%, 16.5%). But previously (Bush reelection) , Wisconsin went D by 0.4%, and Michigan 3.4%. Michigan seems pretty unlikely, and Wisconsin a maybe, but pretty unlikely.

So, I don't think the BBC is as reasonable in their sitting on the fence. Though they may not be actively polling and don't want to be wrong as a result. The point of electoral-vote is to change with polling data._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

If the states that voted for Obama last time are likely to vote for Obama this time, why call them tossups?_________________"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee

If the states that voted for Obama last time are likely to vote for Obama this time, why call them tossups?

Because that's not true. Democrats had a high voter turnout last time; this time around they feel like they got conned and screwed. The easiest way for a 2008 fapper to deal with their disappointment in Obama is to tell themselves they don't care, and to not get emotionally invested this time around. While most of them wouldn't go out and vote Republican as a result, many are not going to bother to vote.

This differential in voter turnout is very hard to predict and does not show up in polls of "likely voters".

What would that be? If they had any, would anybody but the far right pay any attention to it? The problem is that the left controls what are widely perceived to be the "mainstream media" (e.g., NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc., etc.).

Here is the best unbiased assessment: Real Clear Politics, which computes a weighted average of the major polls. They currently have:

Rasmussen-free data (they are known to poll inaccurately, more often than not to the advantage of republicans)

Senate looks like dems are gaining so even if Romney was elected, Obama care couldn't be repealed._________________There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta

I look at the battleground states and see margins that are so close I think it's all going to depend on voter turnout (or, more precisely, I am skeptical as to whether these surveys accurately capture the intent of "likely voters").

I don't see anything earth-shaking happening in terms of Congress. Democrats will retain the majority in the Senate, and Republicans will retain the majority in the House (which is the opposite of the way it should be, if these parties were true to their ideals).

Removing the mandate is the primary necessity at this point. That won't kill it, but it will help. Supposedly any executive orders he can create won't allow for change until 2017, so we'll just have to see.

Seems very strange that Obama is slipping, but Democrats in congress are gaining ground. We'll know soon enough. OK, not soon enough, but soon._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

Don't deceive yourself; Rasmussen isn't the only poll with bias (for example, the CBS/NYT/Quinnapac poll is just a biased in the other direction). That's why I look at an average.

If you read the actual article that explains "why Rasmussen-free", it says they were the only ones found with a significant bias._________________There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta